What he said, with the addendum that “to a greater or lesser extent, just doing your job” when that job keeps another human being in wracking, horrible agony when it could be prevented by smoking a commonly available (if illegal) herb, is unethical and inhuman. I don’t give a shit about your “rule of law” arguments. Humanity first, then legality. ESPECIALLY in a case like this, when moronic legalism can easily be thrown out in favor of giving some poor, tortured souls in extremis an enormous boon. There is no slippery slope here, and if you argue there is, you’re an idiot.
Oh, and Kel? Nice try, dickcheese. If I couldn’t smell a strawman a mile away, I might actually take you seriously. As it is, I’ve no problems with criminal defense attorneys as a class. As for specific criminal defense attorneys, well, I wouldn’t know unless I’d met them.
Not that I am any fan of the War on Drugs, but remember that this is the same ‘perverted Commerce Clause’ that was used to justify the majority of the Civil Rights decisions. Undercut the federal ability to use it, and you can kiss goodbye to a lot of anti-discrimination efforts.
Not necesarilly. I’d be surprised if there were any states that wouldn’t enact such legislation on their own if the federal laws were struck down. 30 years ago? Hell no. But attitudes have changed…
Definitely not necessarily. And I think most states would implement similar measures. But I’m not certain of it, and no one else is, either. Even if all states did pass something, I find it unlikely that all would provide the same level of protection available today. Too many people have suffered up too much to walk away from decisions like Ollie’s Barbecue.
Hmmm… and what’s that little bit of the Constitution about only making certain laws that deal with national defence, interstate commerce, etc.? Oh, you mean that Constitution?
Are you saying that this law has nothing to do with interstate commerce? And that the position that it does have something to do with interstate commerce is so wrong that the lawyers representing that position are “scummy”?
I thought there was a way to extract the THC into a pill or injection form that could help glaucoma patients, no? And what are the better meds for those people? I’m genuinely curious.
True, but growers tell me there are various strains of marijuana, some that are primarily mood altering, and others that target physical pain, and what they grow for compassion clubs and the like focuses on pain and nausea relief.
Personally, I think the whole anti-pot legislation in North America is misguided. Marijuana is already a massive industry despite prohibition, and in many parts of the continent it’s the single largest industry. Legalize the damn thing, put organized crime out of business, and start collecting tax revenue.
Suffice it to say that I believe that the Federal government has ample claim to regulate the sale and use of pharmaceuticals and other drugs for the treatment of diseases. As we know, hose laws have prohibited the therapudic use of pot.
If states are allowed to blow a loophole in the Federal regulation of drugs because of a very narrow reading of the commerce clause, then that reading of the commerce clause would have effects that I do not believe the Founding Fathers ever intended.
I point out that the Constitution gives Congress the powers that are “necessary and proper” to carry out its specific powers. Blowing loopholes into Federal regulation of important matters, like commerce in pharmaceuticals and drugs, and chemical weapons and firearms and environmental laws and many other things, would take away Congress’ ability to make those “necessary and proper” regulations. That doesn’t serve the interests of the Constitution. The plaintiffs should be seeking legislation, not litigation.
In any case, let me pose a hypothetical. If I had a farm, took some samples from my sick sheep, and did a little harvesting and growing and so on, and ended up with some anthrax, do you folks really believe that the Federal government should have no power to arrest me? If not, what’s the difference between anthrax and pot, from a Constitutional point of view? I’m sure this would make a fine subject for GD, in any case.
Noted Kentucky maverick politician and ganja-advocate Gatewood Galbraith once stated in an article in the Herald-Leader that he used marijuana medicinally to control his asthma.
???
No, Gatewood, you smoke marijuana to get high. I really don’t care. Knock yourself out. Just don’t make such a mockery of the pro-MM argument.
And as for marijuana for terminally ill patients, you know it’s a gateway drug. The next thing you know they’re on to a morphine drip or some phenergan or even Zofran. Can we take that chance?
While I tend toward the legalization of pot (for all uses…I tend to think that this ‘medical marijuana’ business is, in fact, if not intent, a smokescreen for recreational use) I take exception with this statement. While you may not like the rule of law argument in this case, I believe that the rule of law has served ‘humanity’ a whole lot better than its absence, and am unwilling to throw it out over any 1 issue.
I am reminded of A Man for All Seasons… the land is planted thick with laws, and if you cut them all down to get at the devil, what is there to protect you when he turns on you (as he must)?
OOOOhhhhhh. THAT Constitution. That’s the one that the Supreme Court interpreted in Wickard v. Filburn, right? The one that, in that case, the U.S. Supreme Court held that the Commerce Clause did allow Congress to regulate wheat, even if it was grown solely intrastate and used only by the farmer growing it? That Constitution? I’m glad it’s such a cut and dried decision for you using THAT Constitution.
This case is not as simple as that. At its most basic, this case will determine whether the Commerce Clause is going to be interpreted as it has been interpreted for the last 9 years or the previous 60 years before. The Commerce Clause has, since about the late 1930’s, has been interpreted to allow many types of Congressional regulation of intrastate commerce, including the Wickard case. It wasn’t until 1995, when the Supreme Court struck down legislation regarding guns in school zones, that the Commerce Clause was used to strike down federal legislation. This case will have a large impact on how the Commerce Clause will be interpreted in the future, and I don’t think it’s as simple as you appear to make it out to be.